Partly but not entirely because two of the groomsmen from my wedding are getting married or have gotten married this year, I have been thinking about marital relationships a lot lately. It amazes me how fundamentally different men and women are, and how God not only allows, but also ordains, that the most important relationship that the majority of people have is with someone so incredibly different from them.
I see it in other marriages and even in my own where the couple can have a conversation and each person in the couple can walk away with a completely different understanding of what was just discussed. Words like romance, happiness, contentment, love, hurt, respect, security, power, worth, trust, and thousands of other words are all loaded and have different meanings to different people. When people talk about communication being one of the most important things about marriage they seem to downplay that the real complication is getting both spouses to the point where they agree what the meaning of the word, "is," is. I have seen plenty of relationships where at least one spouse was completely unaware that the other spouse essentially spoke another language, so merely encouraging communication may not always suffice.
So, if there is something that I wish I had known better when I got married it is that I needed to pay more attention for what Golden and I each meant when we were discussing something important. A lot of things that seem benign to one spouse are deeply tied to some inner need of the other, so what inner needs were being discussed that only one person at the table even understood was the basis of the conversation? Of course, this only illustrates how much I still have to learn.
I have one question for the married people out there. What is something you wish you realized before you got married that you know better now? Obviously, make it something that wouldn't embarrass you or your spouse.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
journey
I can't believe I was so naive when I was a teenager. How stupid I was in my early twenties. I can't believe the issues I had five years ago. It seems like as I look back in my life I always feel myself superior to my prior self and am a bit embarrassed of what a numskull I was then. To be sure, I have done, said, typed, and thought a lot of unintelligent things in my time. It seems crazy that my future self won't look back in five years and think the same thing of me now.
When I was a kid I never really appreciated the description of life as a journey. What I am today may resemble what I am tomorrow, but I am still slightly different on those two days, for better or for worse. Before, time was so short that I had not changed much. Now, I see my past (still short) life as a meandering path of discovery (and a fair amount of stupidity). People who knew me at one stage of that path might not really know me now.
When I hear anecdotes about famous or non-famous people or read what they wrote or said, I don't always appreciate the context of where that person is in their life. Actions they may perform or positions they may take when they are at one stage in their journey may not be what they would do or believe at a different stage in their journey. Luther in 1510 was a different person from Luther in 1530. Lincoln in 1850 was a different person from Lincoln in 1865. Einstein in 1920 was a different person from Einstein in 1950. However, in each of these situations if I hear a quote from one of these men I expect it to be from the later version of them that has gone through the life-changing experiences rather than the less-experienced versions of themselves.
The Christian take on this is that life's journey is part of what God uses for sanctification. We're given time on earth to allow Him to break us and begin His work in us so that what we are at the end of the journey is what He intended for us to be. Christianity is not the only belief system to take into account the fact that experience changes us (for example, the Buddhist belief in slowly improving toward Nirvana is similar), but it is the only one that puts the responsibility for the changes squarely in God's hands.
The current me is still on the journey to perfection and nowhere near there. That leaves me having to look forward to the work that will be done rather than take pride in already being at the end of the journey.
When I was a kid I never really appreciated the description of life as a journey. What I am today may resemble what I am tomorrow, but I am still slightly different on those two days, for better or for worse. Before, time was so short that I had not changed much. Now, I see my past (still short) life as a meandering path of discovery (and a fair amount of stupidity). People who knew me at one stage of that path might not really know me now.
When I hear anecdotes about famous or non-famous people or read what they wrote or said, I don't always appreciate the context of where that person is in their life. Actions they may perform or positions they may take when they are at one stage in their journey may not be what they would do or believe at a different stage in their journey. Luther in 1510 was a different person from Luther in 1530. Lincoln in 1850 was a different person from Lincoln in 1865. Einstein in 1920 was a different person from Einstein in 1950. However, in each of these situations if I hear a quote from one of these men I expect it to be from the later version of them that has gone through the life-changing experiences rather than the less-experienced versions of themselves.
The Christian take on this is that life's journey is part of what God uses for sanctification. We're given time on earth to allow Him to break us and begin His work in us so that what we are at the end of the journey is what He intended for us to be. Christianity is not the only belief system to take into account the fact that experience changes us (for example, the Buddhist belief in slowly improving toward Nirvana is similar), but it is the only one that puts the responsibility for the changes squarely in God's hands.
The current me is still on the journey to perfection and nowhere near there. That leaves me having to look forward to the work that will be done rather than take pride in already being at the end of the journey.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
a moral question about death
I have given a lot of thought recently to the idea that things that happen early in your life have the potential to significantly impact the quality of your life later on or to lengthen or shorten your life. I don't have detailed statistics here, but I have heard that the life expectancy for football players, for example, is dramatically shorter than the average, and this is probably largely due to the physical toll the game has on players' bodies. They may be in extraordinary physical shape at 25, but taking hit after hit after hit comes back to haunt them at 50 or 60.
Something that hits more closely to home is that, since I have chosen a career and overall lifestyle that is on the more sedentary side, there are some serious risks to my health later in life. I don't really like the ways that I can mitigate this (eating right and exercising), but I still have to strongly consider their value right now.
This whole line of thinking got me on the track of how this might create some moral dilemmas that we don't often think about. Let me pose a few theoretical and necessarily morbid scenarios to illustrate.
First, going with the football theme, imagine a receiver catches the ball and is tackled, but a second defensive player lays down a late hit that results in the receiver getting a concussion. The late hit is penalized, but it was strategic. The strategy does not carry the intention of trying to injure the receiver, but rather to make the receiver gun-shy the next time he reaches for the ball and reduce the receiver's confidence to catch the ball on future downs. Further imagine that the concussion was the tipping point that later caused the receiver to fall into dementia unlike he otherwise would have and also die three or four years earlier than he otherwise would have.
Second, imagine a driver who is not fully drunk, but who is impaired by alcohol, and runs a stop sign and strikes a pedestrian who happens to be jaywalking. The pedestrian does not survive.
Third, imagine two twenty-something friends climbing a tree for whatever reason when one unintentionally bumps the other causing him to fall and badly damage his leg to the point where it never heals properly. That friend is then less physically active than he otherwise would have been throughout the rest of his life, and this leads to a less healthy lifestyle and an earlier death than he otherwise would have had.
Fourth, imagine some people jump their neighbor's fence and use his pool when the neighbor is on vacation. In the process, imagine one of them drowns.
Ethically and/or morally, are the defensive football player and the driver any different in scenarios one and two? I know that it is difficult-to-impossible to map one incident earlier in life to an early death later in life. Since the aggressors in both scenarios had reason to believe that their actions were somewhat unsafe, though, is the badness or goodness of their actions on the same par? There is a good chance that the driver in the second scenario would face manslaughter charges for his recklessness. Regarding the first scenario, though, many defensive football coaches would expect their players to occasionally deliver a dangerous and even illegal hit simply due to the nature of the game.
Ethically and/or morally, are scenarios three and four any different? Is the friend who bumps his cohort better or worse than the neighbor whose pool is broken into? In real life, the person who owns the pool will probably be held more legally responsible for the death in his pool than the friend in the tree will be for the eventual death he causes. Is there any real difference between them at a moral or ethical level, though?
In case it is not obvious, it is my opinion that scenarios one and two contain the same moral value and that scenarios three and four also contain the same moral value. The disregard for human life is the same with the football player and the buzzed driver, and the negligence is the same with the the friend and the pool owner. For practical reasons, the law does not see these scenarios equally. My question is do you?
Something that hits more closely to home is that, since I have chosen a career and overall lifestyle that is on the more sedentary side, there are some serious risks to my health later in life. I don't really like the ways that I can mitigate this (eating right and exercising), but I still have to strongly consider their value right now.
This whole line of thinking got me on the track of how this might create some moral dilemmas that we don't often think about. Let me pose a few theoretical and necessarily morbid scenarios to illustrate.
First, going with the football theme, imagine a receiver catches the ball and is tackled, but a second defensive player lays down a late hit that results in the receiver getting a concussion. The late hit is penalized, but it was strategic. The strategy does not carry the intention of trying to injure the receiver, but rather to make the receiver gun-shy the next time he reaches for the ball and reduce the receiver's confidence to catch the ball on future downs. Further imagine that the concussion was the tipping point that later caused the receiver to fall into dementia unlike he otherwise would have and also die three or four years earlier than he otherwise would have.
Second, imagine a driver who is not fully drunk, but who is impaired by alcohol, and runs a stop sign and strikes a pedestrian who happens to be jaywalking. The pedestrian does not survive.
Third, imagine two twenty-something friends climbing a tree for whatever reason when one unintentionally bumps the other causing him to fall and badly damage his leg to the point where it never heals properly. That friend is then less physically active than he otherwise would have been throughout the rest of his life, and this leads to a less healthy lifestyle and an earlier death than he otherwise would have had.
Fourth, imagine some people jump their neighbor's fence and use his pool when the neighbor is on vacation. In the process, imagine one of them drowns.
Ethically and/or morally, are the defensive football player and the driver any different in scenarios one and two? I know that it is difficult-to-impossible to map one incident earlier in life to an early death later in life. Since the aggressors in both scenarios had reason to believe that their actions were somewhat unsafe, though, is the badness or goodness of their actions on the same par? There is a good chance that the driver in the second scenario would face manslaughter charges for his recklessness. Regarding the first scenario, though, many defensive football coaches would expect their players to occasionally deliver a dangerous and even illegal hit simply due to the nature of the game.
Ethically and/or morally, are scenarios three and four any different? Is the friend who bumps his cohort better or worse than the neighbor whose pool is broken into? In real life, the person who owns the pool will probably be held more legally responsible for the death in his pool than the friend in the tree will be for the eventual death he causes. Is there any real difference between them at a moral or ethical level, though?
In case it is not obvious, it is my opinion that scenarios one and two contain the same moral value and that scenarios three and four also contain the same moral value. The disregard for human life is the same with the football player and the buzzed driver, and the negligence is the same with the the friend and the pool owner. For practical reasons, the law does not see these scenarios equally. My question is do you?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
broken
I mentioned earlier that I was going through a Bible reading plan with some people in my Church. That is why I have not been very active here over the past few months. We completed the Bible last week, so I hope that opens the schedule a bit.
I was talking with my sister about this reading a few weeks ago and she pointed out something that struck me as well. If you believe that the Bible is from God and you read it, it's hard not to be convicted about elements of your life that you would otherwise think are not a big deal.
The theme I got from the reading this time is that the type of person that God wants is one who He can break, then take the pieces and put them together into a manner of His choosing. This theme shows up in the Old Testament through Job, Abraham, Moses, David, and all of the prophets. In the New Testament it shows up in Christ, all of the apostles, and almost everyone Christ talked to (Nicodemus, the rich young ruler, Mary sister of Martha, Martha sister of Mary, etc). The teachings through the Epistles dwell on enduring through and growing in turmoil almost to an annoying level, especially in Hebrews and 1 & 2 Peter but in most of Paul's letters as well.
There are other things that I learned in the reading, and I have to note that my main observation was largely because I came into the reading with the open question of what God really does want from His followers. I wanted to pay attention for what really is living by the Spirit, and this is what I got. Living by the Spirit is allowing God to do whatever to you He wants.
I probably will not do another reading this aggressive for a long while, but there is no denying that God can use Scripture to challenge and change people. I know that He is challenging me. The question is what change will result.
I was talking with my sister about this reading a few weeks ago and she pointed out something that struck me as well. If you believe that the Bible is from God and you read it, it's hard not to be convicted about elements of your life that you would otherwise think are not a big deal.
The theme I got from the reading this time is that the type of person that God wants is one who He can break, then take the pieces and put them together into a manner of His choosing. This theme shows up in the Old Testament through Job, Abraham, Moses, David, and all of the prophets. In the New Testament it shows up in Christ, all of the apostles, and almost everyone Christ talked to (Nicodemus, the rich young ruler, Mary sister of Martha, Martha sister of Mary, etc). The teachings through the Epistles dwell on enduring through and growing in turmoil almost to an annoying level, especially in Hebrews and 1 & 2 Peter but in most of Paul's letters as well.
There are other things that I learned in the reading, and I have to note that my main observation was largely because I came into the reading with the open question of what God really does want from His followers. I wanted to pay attention for what really is living by the Spirit, and this is what I got. Living by the Spirit is allowing God to do whatever to you He wants.
I probably will not do another reading this aggressive for a long while, but there is no denying that God can use Scripture to challenge and change people. I know that He is challenging me. The question is what change will result.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
march nothingness
I enjoy March Madness for a different reason than most everyone else does. I love this stretch of time when most other people are spending time watching a sport that I don't care about and TV shows are preempted, so that I can get a bit of extra time that I wouldn't have if I were a basketball fan.
By rights I probably should care about basketball. Now that I have a degree from the University of Kansas, I probably should care how the basketball team does. Of all the major sports, though, basketball is probably the one I care about least. I really, genuinely don't care. Golf, tennis, and NASCAR don't count as major sports.
I have a few problems with basketball. First, it is the sport where physical build most obviously trumps determination. Someone who is seven feet tall is going to outplay someone who is five-and-a-half feet tall regardless of the amount of practice they put in. Second, I can't recognize most strategy in the game like I can for a game like football, so it just looks repetitive to me. Finally, I have never played basketball well, so I never had a reason to care about the sport.
The problem is, most people assume that if you are a man in your thirties and you have an interest in some sports you must like college basketball. I don't like to keep pointing out that I don't care about the sport, so I usually find other ways to deflect conversations about basketball at this time of year. This used to be pretty difficult when I was in class at KU and everyone wanted to talk about the games, the players, the history, etc. I was relatively successful in avoiding looking like I had no school spirit when that was the reality, though.
Do you have anything similar where you just don't care about something you probably should? Is there something you don't always readily admit just simply doesn't matter to you?
By rights I probably should care about basketball. Now that I have a degree from the University of Kansas, I probably should care how the basketball team does. Of all the major sports, though, basketball is probably the one I care about least. I really, genuinely don't care. Golf, tennis, and NASCAR don't count as major sports.
I have a few problems with basketball. First, it is the sport where physical build most obviously trumps determination. Someone who is seven feet tall is going to outplay someone who is five-and-a-half feet tall regardless of the amount of practice they put in. Second, I can't recognize most strategy in the game like I can for a game like football, so it just looks repetitive to me. Finally, I have never played basketball well, so I never had a reason to care about the sport.
The problem is, most people assume that if you are a man in your thirties and you have an interest in some sports you must like college basketball. I don't like to keep pointing out that I don't care about the sport, so I usually find other ways to deflect conversations about basketball at this time of year. This used to be pretty difficult when I was in class at KU and everyone wanted to talk about the games, the players, the history, etc. I was relatively successful in avoiding looking like I had no school spirit when that was the reality, though.
Do you have anything similar where you just don't care about something you probably should? Is there something you don't always readily admit just simply doesn't matter to you?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
...of a child
The passage I want to look at today I have heard taught many times, and I have always felt slightly uneasy about the way it was taught. I think I was always a bit insulted by the simplicity of the message, but I never really articulated why that was a problem. It did not bother me too much, but just a little. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all cover the passage, so I will include the version from Mark below.
There are two hints to what the actual point of the passage is. The first hint is that the disciples find it necessary to rebuke people who are bringing children to Jesus. Why do the disciples feel the need to specifically keep children away from Jesus? It doesn't have anything to do with the children's faith. That would make no sense.
The reason that the disciples would have rebuked those bringing children to Jesus is that in Jesus' time in the Middle East there was no honor in being young. Honor was for the aged. In this patriarchal society the dishonorable youths were managed by the women, and for a male teacher to be wasting his time with kids when he could be teaching those who were older would have been a dishonor. That was a woman's work! Therefore, the disciples believe they are protecting the honor of their teacher. Furthermore, when Jesus tells the disciples that they will have to receive the kingdom of God like children he is telling them that they have to dishonor themselves to become a part of this kingdom.
The second hint is a bit more straightforward, but you have to look in a different passage to find it. Not long before this exchange in Mark 10 (also in Matt 19:13-15 and Luke 18:15-17) Jesus had already told the disciples that they would have to humble themselves like children. Notice this in the passage below.
"People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.' And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them."- Mark 10:13-16Every time that I can recall that I have heard this taught it has been about the faith of a child. The lesson is on how children don't question things and just accept them, so we should accept God in the same way. While faith is important, I feel that the more important and challenging lesson has been dropped from this telling of the passage, which is humility.
There are two hints to what the actual point of the passage is. The first hint is that the disciples find it necessary to rebuke people who are bringing children to Jesus. Why do the disciples feel the need to specifically keep children away from Jesus? It doesn't have anything to do with the children's faith. That would make no sense.
The reason that the disciples would have rebuked those bringing children to Jesus is that in Jesus' time in the Middle East there was no honor in being young. Honor was for the aged. In this patriarchal society the dishonorable youths were managed by the women, and for a male teacher to be wasting his time with kids when he could be teaching those who were older would have been a dishonor. That was a woman's work! Therefore, the disciples believe they are protecting the honor of their teacher. Furthermore, when Jesus tells the disciples that they will have to receive the kingdom of God like children he is telling them that they have to dishonor themselves to become a part of this kingdom.
The second hint is a bit more straightforward, but you have to look in a different passage to find it. Not long before this exchange in Mark 10 (also in Matt 19:13-15 and Luke 18:15-17) Jesus had already told the disciples that they would have to humble themselves like children. Notice this in the passage below.
"At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, 'Who is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven?' He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: 'I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven.'"- Matt 18:1-4It is good to have the faith of a child if it is truly faith and not a show, but in the passage where that phrase originated God is instead asking for your humility.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
my time
Pretty much the theme of my life over the last few years has been me not wanting to relinquish control of my time and my time being wrested from me. That is kind of expected when you have small children, but it is something that I in particular struggle with. Even when I had more free time the biggest fantasy I had for where I wanted my life to be was the ability to enjoy time-consuming pleasures (games, books, movies) without concern for the opportunity cost in time or money. I don't know that I articulated that this was my biggest life fantasy, but it was.
The problem with this fantasy is the problem with any fantasy. It places me and my wants ahead of everyone else. It also represents something that I have a hard time giving to God. This is evidenced by the fact that I have really struggled with having a good attitude about my accelerated Bible reading plan over the last month. I had grand plans for my limited free time January through May and this pretty much shot those down. If I can't make a real time sacrifice to read Scripture, though, something is probably wrong with my life.
I don't really have much more to say about this other than I think this is something that I will always struggle with. God is going to work on this during my life, but this is something that does not change easily.
The problem with this fantasy is the problem with any fantasy. It places me and my wants ahead of everyone else. It also represents something that I have a hard time giving to God. This is evidenced by the fact that I have really struggled with having a good attitude about my accelerated Bible reading plan over the last month. I had grand plans for my limited free time January through May and this pretty much shot those down. If I can't make a real time sacrifice to read Scripture, though, something is probably wrong with my life.
I don't really have much more to say about this other than I think this is something that I will always struggle with. God is going to work on this during my life, but this is something that does not change easily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
